all micro contact rss

Review: Waterfield Designs Portable Muzetto

Portable Muzetto from Waterfield Designs.  Price as tested: 213.96 USD

Perfect timing

I almost didn’t receive my Portable Muzetto in time to test it on my trip to the East Coast this April. Evidently, this new bag has proven to be so popular with Waterfield’s customers that Gary and his team can’t keep up with demand. It’s a testament to Waterfield’s great customer service that Gary himself personally emailed me to apologize that my bag may not arrive in time. He also offered to cancel my order if the delay had caused me to change my mind. It was one of those simple gestures that breeds loyalty in your customers.

Thankfully, my bag did arrive at my door the day before I left. (I never considered canceling my order.)

Design

The Portable Muzetto is a 10-inch version of Waterfield’s top-of-the-line offering, designed specifically with the iPad in mind. While the iPad could fit naked into a Personal Muzetto, or sleeved inside the larger 13-inch Laptop Muzetto with room to spare, Gary felt a specially designed size in between these two variations was in order for Apple’s newest gadget.

Aside from the slightly larger size, the Portable Muzetto is pretty much exactly the same as the Personal Muzetto. The outside of the bag is naturally tanned leather with a nicely sanded finish. It’s beautiful and should wear quite well. Underneath the weighted main flap is a nylon section that is available in six colors. I chose black, mostly because I wanted it to match my Ultimate SleeveCase with Leather trim perfectly. I know, black is a little boring. But I’m a little boring, so it suits me fine.

Like all of Waterfield’s cases, the Portable Muzetto has a gold liner inside its pockets, to make finding items easier. This is the mark of good bag design, and a feature found mostly in much pricier bags. Everything from the strap D rings to the auto-locking zippers suggests that this bag is a quality product. No loose stitching, no signs of laziness on the production-side. This is the real deal.

Taking it on the road

One of the reasons I gave up my laptop for the iPad was so that I could make my digital life a bit more portable. Carrying around a 17-inch laptop in a giant backpack for several years had taken its toll on me. So my new bag had to be all about carrying just the essentials. The iPad, an umbrella on rainy days, a set of headphones, maybe a few papers from work, a cable or two. Keep it light and simple. The portable Muzetto fits that bill exactly. It’s fairly lightweight. It’s much smaller than a backpack. And yet it fits all my essentials without allowing me to take too much extra junk I don’t need. With the iPad Ultimate SleeveCase inside the main pouch, I put two dock connector cables in the zipper pouch, along with my keys, change, and some small papers. In the front area, I placed an umbrella and my small Gear Pouch (also from Waterfield) which holds my VGA adapter, power adapters for my iPad and iPhone, and my personal earphones. I also managed to slip my Bluetooth Wireless Keyboard from Apple inside the area in front of the iPad. The small pocket near the outside is perfect for either a wallet or an iPhone. I tend to alternate between the two.

For my trip, I was going to be using the new Muzetto in a plane, car, subway, and bus. I would also be walking quite a bit. So I was excited to see how it would fare. On the plane, the Muzetto was the perfect companion. It fit very easily under the seat in front of me, giving me far more leg and foot room than I usually get with my big backpack. Because the weighted flap has no clasp of any kind, getting the iPad in and out was super-simple, even in crowded coach.

(If you haven’t taken your iPad on a plane yet, you’re in for a treat. It’s so much better than trying to negotiate a laptop on a tray table.)

On the subway, the Muzetto proved again to be well-suited to its task. The flap allows for very easy access to the inside pockets, so you don’t need to take the bag off your shoulder to get items from inside. I generally don’t take the iPad out on the subway train, but I can easily get to my Gear Pouch for my headphones, or grab my keys or wallet, or slip my iPhone in or out of its pocket. Walking around town, I was pleased with how light the Muzetto is, and how well-constructed the non-slip strap is. The vertical design is great for weight distribution. My bag never once fell off my shoulder, even in high wind conditions, and I never experienced some of the squeaking or other rubbing metal noises I get from other bags with D-rings.

Despite its expensive leather look, the Muzetto also handled the rain quite well. My efforts to keep it dry with an umbrella proved futile, but in the end, despite getting quite wet, the leather exterior still maintained its beauty and softness. All in all, this bag is the perfect example of just how well designed, crafted, and executed any Waterfield product is. You really can tell the difference, and you really do feel like you are getting your money’s worth. I can’t think of any way that Gary could improve upon the design of this bag. Ultimately, this bag is going to travel with me everywhere, so I need to find it more than just functional. I need to be attached to it emotionally. And I am. Like all Waterfield products, the Portable Muzetto is made here in San Francisco, not a sweat shop in China. It’s made in an environmentally responsible way by people who are paid a fair wage. You could find plenty of cheaper bags on the market, but none that is of this quality. I highly recommend this bag, as well as many other fine products from Waterfield.

Microsoft on Flash and HTML5

> Dean Hachamovitch, Microsoft’s General Manager of Internet Explorer, cut to the chase rather quickly, by stating “the future of the Web is HTML5.” He also said that Microsoft has been “deeply engaged” in the HTML5 process with the W3C, the standards body that drafts the specifications for how HTML5 should work. The company’s Internet Explorer 9, now in beta for Windows users, features HTML5 support. Hachamovitch says that while the W3C does not specify a video format for video embedded in HTML5 sites, Microsoft has joined Apple in supporting H.264, and H.264 alone. > > In a potential move to soften the blow to [an already upset Adobe](http://www.macworld.com/article/150950/2010/04/adobe_apple.html), Hachamovitch does end his piece with an acknowledgement that “despite [some] issues, Flash remains an important part of delivering a good consumer experience on today’s web.” > > Of course, with the rise of the portable devices that don’t support Flash—and especially the popularity of the iPhone and iPad—major publishers and content providers [have quickly accelerated the adoption of](http://www.apple.com/ipad/ready-for-ipad/) HTML5 and H.264 to provide Flash-less video delivery. Or, in other words, while Flash may be the Web technology of *today*, don’t think it will necessarily by the Web technology of *tomorrow.*
via [macworld.com](http://www.macworld.com/article/150960/2010/04/microsoft_flash_html5.html)
This is interesting, but maybe not too surprising. Microsoft is killing two birds with one stone here. It’s been in Microsoft’s best interest to kill Flash ever since it started developing Silverlight. At the same time, Microsoft needs to take every chance it can get to promote the next version of IE as a standards-based browser, since every past version of IE was so terrible on that front that people have begun to wise up and move on.

The mass exodus away from IE is only going to accelerate. Hopping on the HTML5 bandwagon is an act of desperation, but a smart one.

Is it hypocritical to blast Flash while promoting Silverlight in the next gen of Microsoft phones? Absolutely. But it’s also good marketing.

Companies run to “open” and “standards” talk when it suits them. That’s why Apple ended up developing WebKit, Darwin, and all of its open stuff. And it’s why Apple started adopting USB, DVI, etc. It had no other choice when it was the underdog but to jump on bandwagons.

Balancing what you want to distribute freely vs. what you want to keep proprietary is how you make money in the tech business. You need differentiation, but you also need to play well with others. (It’s not altogether like being a sophomore in high school.) Google does this as well. That’s why “Don’t be Evil” is a crock, as Steve Jobs suggested.

Meanwhile, Adobe now isn’t just fighting Apple, but Microsoft, too. (If it weren’t for Google’s ill-conceived passion to kill the iPhone, they’d be fighting Google as well. My guess is that Flash will not boost sales of Android at all, and Adobe will lose that ally soon enough.)

What chance does Adobe have in that battle?

The only question that remains is will Adobe wise up and drop Flash like a hot rock fast enough to save itself from falling into obscurity? They still have tons of great brands they could fall back on. But not if they keep releasing overpriced upgrades that only offer more hooks to Flash.

My prediction: Dreamweaver will be the first to fall. With no HTML5 tools to speak of in CS5, Dreamweaver will be losing a lot of customers to whoever builds a good wysiwyg editor for HTML5.

Adobe Responds to Jobs

> Narayen [spoke exclusively](http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2010/04/29/live-blogging-the-journals-interview-with-adobe-ceo/) with *The Wall Street Journal* Thursday afternoon after Jobs’ letter, entitled “Thoughts on Flash,” was posted on Apple’s website. The Adobe CEO said he believes that multi-platform options like Flash will “eventually prevail,” because they allow developers to write software that can be used on a number of devices, rather than being tied to Apple’s iPhone OS ecosystem through the App Store. > > “We have different views of the world,” Narayan reportedly said of Adobe and Apple. “Our view of the world is multi-platform.”
via [appleinsider.com](http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/04/29/adobe_ceo_dismisses_steve_jobs_comments_on_flash_as_a_smokescreen.html)
Wow. That was a mistake. I really thought Adobe would have been smart enough to simply ignore Apple’s statement this morning, or at least do a simple press release saying “We respectfully disagree, but will go on making our great products, etc.”

Narayen comes off sounding like a pompous ass in this interview, if you ask me. And a stupid one, at that.

So far, all we’ve seen from the Adobe side is “Screw you, Apple” and “We’re open, they’re closed!” even though everyone knows that’s not true. Meanwhile, Jobs’ statement, while critical of Adobe, was rather reasoned and emotion-free. It’s like watching a child fight with an adult.

Adobe still thinks it can win this battle in the media, which is really unfortunate.

The reason why Adobe can’t win the media battle is that Apple understands better who they are talking to. Jobs’ statement was very consumer-centric. Apple is looking out for its customers. Adobe’s comments in this interview are business-centric. “Our view of the world is multi-platform.” In other words, we look out for our business partners, no matter how much that screws consumers.

Consumers don’t want things that are developed for multi-platform. They want products made exclusively for them. You say things like “Our view of the world is multi-platform” to a room full of developers, not a reporter.

Products are bought by real people. If consumers get a nasty taste in their mouths over this Flash thing, and they blame Adobe, then they stop buying products that contain Adobe technology. And then Adobe’s business partners are left selling something no one is buying.

This has been the fundamental problem with Flash over the past few years. Adobe has been spending all of its efforts on making Flash more attractive to advertisers, media companies, other businesses, all the while making it less and less attractive to consumers. All the development has been in locking down rights, permissions, injecting ads—almost no effort whatsoever has gone into making Flash a great user experience. Thus, the bugs, the crashes, the hogging of resources. The product is crap, because they spend all the time and money pitching it, instead of using it.

Jobs knows the media better than anyone. The man has been bending the media to his will since the ’70s. Taking him head-on in this arena would be suicide for a seasoned pro; it’s suicide ten times over for a drip like Narayen.

At this point, if Adobe wants to have any hope at all of succeeding with Flash, it needs to stop talking, and start shipping Flash on some mobile product. Any mobile product. Until then, all the bellyaching sounds like childish ranting.

"Thoughts on Flash" by Steve Jobs

> New open standards created in the mobile era, such as HTML5, will win on mobile devices (and PCs too). Perhaps Adobe should focus more on creating great HTML5 tools for the future, and less on criticizing Apple for leaving the past behind.
via [apple.com](http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughts-on-flash/)
Well said, Steve. I, too, hope that Adobe makes some HTML5 tools to help me create web sites for the future.

I encourage everyone to read Steve’s official statement on Flash. It sums up what most defenders of Apple’s policy have been suggesting for months now. It’s not about Apple hates Adobe. It’s not about Steve being a vindictive jerk. It’s about being bold enough to kill old technologies to make way for the new. And that’s been part of Apple’s DNA since its inception.

Another Tool on the Long-term Prospects of the iPhone

> The death of the iPhone is being foretold and the outlook for the PC and laptop aren’t much better. Influential security company CEO [Eugene Kaspersky](http://www.kaspersky.com/virusanalysts) told *PC Advisor* at [InfoSec](http://www.infosec.co.uk) Tuesday that both are set to be consigned to history. > > The iconic Apple iPhone will either not exist or occupy a very small niche satisfying the needs of committed Mac fans around five years from now, predicts Kaspersky. > > The founder of [Kaspersky Lab](http://www.kaspersky.co.uk/) says that of the five main mobile platforms currently in existence, the only two guaranteed to last beyond the next five years are Android and Symbian. Open-source platforms will outlast closed systems such as the iPhone OS, BlackBerry OS and Windows Mobile, believes Kaspersky. To survive, the closed systems need to change their approach and get rid of their restrictions for developers, he says. > > If Apple doesn’t change its approach, the iPhone will become a niche model for fans of Apple, but it will not be a mass market product, says Kaspersky. However, the security company chief, whose main focus is on keeping malware off “digital devices”, believes Apple boss Steve Jobs is content for this to be the case.
via [macworld.com](http://www.macworld.com/article/150904/2010/04/iphone_prediction.html?lsrc=rss_main)
Yeah. I’ll check in with you in five years and see how that theory of yours panned out.

When are techno-geeks going to get it into their heads that customers couldn’t care less about the difference between “Open” and “Closed” platforms? All the user cares about is “does it work?” And traditionally, Open platforms don’t work, unless you’re an über-nerd who likes troubleshooting your broken, incomprehensible system.

In the entire history of computing thus far, Open has never succeeded over Closed. Microsoft is a closed platform. Linux was its Open competitor. We all know how that turned out.

Also, people who cling to the naive belief that Android is Open are never going to get any respect from me. Google is as closed as Apple or Microsoft ever were. If you don’t believe me, just ask them to release their search algorithms or their Ad technology. Android is worse than a traditional closed system, because it lures you with the illusion of being open. But at the end of the day, Google will clamp down on developers just as hard as anyone else if their core business is threatened, or if they think it will benefit them.

Take, for instance, the recent embracing of Adobe Flash. Rather than continuing to help Apple promote the Open, standards-based HTML 5, Google jumped at the opportunity to screw HTML 5 developers by allowing the very Closed Flash plugin on Android devices. Why? So it could maybe hope to grab a few sales away from Apple.

The problem with the Open software movement is that it has never figured out a way to make money. And money drives everything in technology. I’m not blaming Google for not being open, or not always promoting Open technologies. After all, they are a company. They need to make money.